First, it's a 30% fed sales tax, not 23%. If an item costs $100 before adding FT, you add $30 (not $23), total, $130. They deceptively divide the $30 FT by the total $130. Pretty sneaky, eh? They babble on that it compares to a 23% income tax, but FT is a sales tax of 30%.

The Prebate is not a real refund of FT paid, as it appears to be. It is a $600B NEW ENTITLEMENT, with all Americans receiving a big monthly federal check a very bad idea for those of us who are not Socialists. It is financially and politically unwise to create yet another huge entitlement that will only increase in the future.

FT (Prebate) has the poor pay for no part of the fed budget, pay nothing for their personal SS/Medicare benefits, AND give them a big tax welfare check. FT (Prebate) extends tax welfare to the non-working poor and also takes the next Progressive Cloward-Piven step towards giving SS/Medicare to all regardless of work, by removing the tax cost of reporting SS Wages, which invites fraud in reporting them (as also noted by other authors).

The Prebate is calculated to merely repay the poor for any FT they pay (as if we all agree with that), but it would actually pay them far MORE by assuming the poor spend more than the underlying HHS Poverty Guidelines and that they will pay FT on all of their purchases (but they WON T) see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!ft-increases-tax-welfare/copu

Some FT'ers still market the old FT lie that we get a big raise (no Income & P/R taxes) AND FT prices would be the same as today s - that just cannot be true. FT is merely supposed to change the method of paying the same total tax dollars we pay today, so if you get a big raise, prices must go up by the same total dollar amount (except for minor savings in compliance costs). Retail prices would rise by nearly the full 30%. Even the AFFT, and an economist it engaged, now admit that prices would rise substantially, and perhaps the full 30% - see http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge/ft-will-increase-prices-by-nearly-30

Those rates might go up to (say) 60-75 at an illustrative 30% evasion/avoidance rate (incredibly, FT assumes zero evasion, zero intentional reduction in spending and zero migration from new to used goods instead of increasing the FT rates, the $600-$900B shortfall will more likely result in a new Income tax, see below).

FT' s 30% rate is really closer to 50%. FT hides another appx. 20% in taxes (but FT ers deceptively say the FT is fully transparent - just look at your receipt and you will see all of the FT you will pay ). 1) 12+% is hidden by having fed + S/L govts pay FT (which is likely unconstitutional) ultimately, they must get that money from us, 2) The fed budget will rise for a) SS & all fed pension COLA s caused by FT s 30% price increase, and for b) fraudulent new SS benefits invited by FT s removal of the tax cost for reporting SS Wages (as noted by other authors ), 3) FT economists have admitted that the FT is 5% short.

Incidentally, USED property is advertised as exempt from FT, but that may be a cruel hoax, because of the practical difficulty of establishing that the buyer has met the requirements that FT was paid AND that none of 3 listed credits against the FT were claimed.

As also noted by Cato Institute (see https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/a-primer-on-the-flat-tax-and-fundamental-tax-reform/), FT leaves us more vulnerable to winding up with both a NEW Income Tax and FT (instead of adding 20-30% on top of the FT s already high explicit 30% rate). Congress would surely repeal FT s laughable Sunset Clause and (with the 16th Amendment surely still firmly in place) would use the excuse of the large revenue shortfall from evasion/avoidance to enact a new Income Tax which I believe is Congress ultimate objective of stealing even more of our money to redistribute to those who will vote for them.

To summarize the FT rate, it appears that FT required a much higher tax rate. AFFT simply assumed away 20-30% evasion/avoidance, hid 12% by taxing fed +S/L govts, reduced the rate by 5%, and ignored the FT-caused fed budget increases - to get the rate down to 30%. Then a clever AFFT lawyer deceptively twisted the statute to make 30% superficially appear to be only 23%.

Seniors would start to pay for SS/Medicare again and some would pay a 2nd-3rd tax on their earnings. Many middle class seniors would pay more FT than they would have paid in Income Tax and many would lose purchasing power because of 1) the nearly 30% price increase, and 2) the higher S/L & federal taxes required because they must pay FT and can only get those funds from us, and 3) higher federal taxes due to nearly 30% higher SS & federal pension COLA s and fraudulent SS benefits.

Instead, we need a Flat Income Tax; No: Deductions/Exemptions/Credits, a 10% rate, business income taxed only once on a very simple basis - IRS neutered, 1-page filing, everyone pays, more evolutionary. See, A Very Flat Income Tax, http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge#!page-2/cjg9 -- Let your representatives in Congress know that this is what you want.

Photographers choosing to submit photographs for publication to SitNews are in doing so granting their permission for publication and for archiving. SitNews does not sell photographs. All requests for purchasing a photograph will be emailed to the photographer.